Article about SIGG and BPA leaching...

[shoxie]

I didn't want to post this in the other SIGG threads as they are long, and it might get lost. I just saw this article, and I'm beyond angry now...

At this point, I simply don't want to deal with SIGG at all. I want them to test these bottles correctly and see if they actually leach...I'm not optimistic, however.

http://thestar.com/article/690222

[brittone2]

I don't even have one, but wow. They suck.

[kijip]

Well, Kleen Kanteen must be raking it in right now. I know I grabbed one when stocking up for back to school (his old water bottle is too small for him now). And I got the Kleen Kanteen sippy for F.

[vludmilla]

Wow. I am no particular fan of class-action lawsuits but I do think they may deserve one for playing so fast and loose with the facts.

[katydid1971]

Has anyone who has sent back their bottles received their credit yet? I know mine were received on Monday but I haven't heard anything from the company yet. Not scoring points when they are already on shakey ground with me.

[lowrioh]

I read the article and I just thought that I would chime in. In the EU they have a standard for BPA concentrations that is in the part per billion (ppb) range. Many laboratories have the equipment that can measure ppb levels of BPA but very few can measure at the part per trillion level that the professor found in the bottle. The equipment needed is around ~$350K and then you need a couple of PhDs to run them.....most industry labs just don't have that lying around. The equipment needed to measure ppb concentrations is less expensive (~100K) so more facilities can measure it. I am guessing that Sigg ran the tests using this more widely used instrumentation so they didn't see any BPA.

To put it into context ppb is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 250 chemical drums (50 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31.7 years.

And ppt is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 20, two-meter-deep Olympic-size swimming pools (50,000 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31,700 years. (courtesy of wikipedia).

I'm not going to get into the BPA debate but I just thought I would put it into context since most non-scientist can't visualize what ppm, ppb and ppt mean.

[Melaine]

Ironically, I *just* saw Siggs at Target yesterday for the first time! I don't know if they just picked them up or what, but their timing sure is funny....

[brittone2]

I read the article and I just thought that I would chime in. In the EU they have a standard for BPA concentrations that is in the part per billion (ppb) range. Many laboratories have the equipment that can measure ppb levels of BPA but very few can measure at the part per trillion level that the professor found in the bottle. The equipment needed is around ~$350K and then you need a couple of PhDs to run them.....most industry labs just don't have that lying around. The equipment needed to measure ppb concentrations is less expensive (~100K) so more facilities can measure it. I am guessing that Sigg ran the tests using this more widely used instrumentation so they didn't see any BPA.

To put it into context ppb is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 250 chemical drums (50 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31.7 years.

And ppt is equivalent to 1 drop of water diluted into 20, two-meter-deep Olympic-size swimming pools (50,000 m3), or one second of time in approximately 31,700 years. (courtesy of wikipedia).

I'm not going to get into the BPA debate but I just thought I would put it into context since most non-scientist can't visualize what ppm, ppb and ppt mean.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't get to talk with my DH (a chemist) about this much yet.

I think the problem comes in with saying the product does not leach BPA, only to find out that the company's measurements aren't all that sensitive, kwim?

I guess I'm just tired of their semantics games, etc. "BPA-free" vs. "not leaching BPA" which is obviously confusing and misleading to 99.5% of consumers.

Their pattern when handling this situation has created the distrust about their intentions IMO. (eta: along w/ their comments that this is essentially not their fault since the lining was produced by a third party, etc. And now they don't do the most sensitive testing so it isn't their fault either, kwim?)

[bubbaray]

I just sent back my Sigg to Sigg Canada yesterday. I actually ended up keeping one of my old Siggs (and calling the company so they could charge me for the bottle I got free -- they sent me 2 new ones and I sent back 1 old one instead of 2) because the more I read, the less concerned I am about the Sigg liner issue.

From what I understand (armchair chemist that I am -- my h/s and university chemistry teachers must be laughing at that), leaching of BPA is mainly when plastic is heated or hot things are put into the plastic. Neither of those apply to my Sigg bottles, which only ever have cold fluids in them and are not washed (per instructions) in the d/w (and obviously, they are never microwaved). I was really really sad about sending back my pink breast-cancer bottle, so I ended up keeping that one.

ITA that how the company handled this is poor. Lots of other companies have PR nightmares and still move forward. I do like the product otherwise (seriously, they are super cute!) and hope that the company will learn a lesson from this.

As an aside, Sigg Canada did not make me pay shipping -- shipping was free both ways.

[brittone2]

In the past BPA has been shown to leach with wear and tear-scratches, etc. that happen during the cleaning process. With clear polycarbonate bottles this damage is easier to see w/ the naked eye. I wonder how easily you can tell with the BPA-containing Siggs in comparison?

I haven't read their full test report, but I also wonder if they've tested under those conditions-bottles w/ some wear and tear from cleaning and use vs. newer, perfect linings, kwim? Anyone know?